June
15, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4503. I, and many other Members of this Body, rose in opposition to the Energy Conference Report that was passed by this House last November. And here we are again. This bill is essentially the same legislative text as the Conference Report; it’s simply introduced under a new bill number. The House Republican Leadership believe that they can score political points by calling up legislation that was already voted on and passed by the House. I believe our time would be better spent debating and crafting new energy legislation that would provide for our energy needs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and move America forward.
Mr.
Speaker, I was a Member of the Energy Conference and was exceedingly
disappointed that the Conference was not conducted in a bipartisan fashion.
Instead, conference meetings were held behind closed doors with only a
select group of Republican House and Senate Members in attendance, and the bill
was crafted by a very small number of partisans.
As a result of this secretiveness, the Conference squandered an
opportunity to craft meaningful, forward-looking energy legislation that could
be supported by both sides of the aisle.
The
bill tilts egregiously on the side of corporate America and the already
privileged. The number of offensive
provisions littered throughout the bill are simply too many to enumerate, so I
will highlight just a few examples.
Ø
Section 328 of the bill exempts the oil and gas industry from complying
with the Clean Water Act’s stormwater permitting requirements for construction
activities. This provision makes
oil and gas exploration the only construction activity not subject to Clean
Water Act requirements. It is a
complete, unprecedented end-run around one of our Nation’s most successful
environmental laws, and was written into this legislation without the benefit of
public hearings or testimony on the provision.
Ø
Section 756(c) of the conference report allows a 250-pound increase in
the weight of some heavy trucks, purportedly to provide incentives for trucking
companies to utilize a certain type of idle reduction technology.
While I support the environmental benefits of reducing truck idling, I
cannot support an increase in truck weights that will inflict further damage
upon the highway infrastructure and threaten the safety of the driving public.
At a time when states are searching for the funds necessary to fix roads
that are worn to the point of being unsafe, this provision will increase the
stress on our Nation’s highway infrastructure, costing taxpayers approximately
$300 million each year in increased highway damage.
Further, this exemption is unnecessary.
The industry’s own figures show that idling reduction technologies pay
for themselves in reduced fuel costs in approximately two years.
Ø
Section 1502 provides special protection for MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether) producers from liability associated with clean up costs and damages
caused by MTBE contamination of groundwater.
MTBE is a gasoline additive that helps make gas burn cleaner and reduces
air pollution, but it also becomes a suspected carcinogen that can contaminate
groundwater and surface water. As a
result of this special interest provision, taxpayers will be forced to pay the
estimated $29 billion cost of cleaning MTBE-contaminated water across the
country.
Ø
Section 326 establishes a dangerous precedent under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by authorizing the federal government to
reimburse oil and gas companies for the costs of undertaking environmental
impact analyses relating to oil and gas leasing. This provision, in combination with a similar provision for
geothermal energy, is estimated to cost taxpayers $165 million over the next ten
years.
Ø
The bill does nothing to increase the average fuel economy standards.
One way to ensure that we decrease our dependence on foreign oil is to
increase the number of miles per gallon achieved by our cars, trucks, and sport
utility vehicles. However, this
massive legislation does nothing to address this issue and simply leaves in
place the status quo.
It
is a shame that the Republican majority has chosen to proceed in this manner
because there were some promising provisions in the Energy bill that could begin
to move this country in the right direction, such as a provision to equip public
building with photovoltaic solar energy systems and a provision to promote fuel
conservation by encouraging bicycling instead of driving.
Not surprisingly, these provisions were adopted
from Democratic amendments that my colleagues and I offered on the floor of the
House during consideration of H.R. 6 in April 2003.
If the conference process had been open to Democrats, I am confident that
we could have seen more of these forward-looking provisions in the bill.
But
instead the House Republican Leadership has once again decided to put politics
ahead of policy. It is wasting the time of this House and the American people
by calling up flawed legislation – legislation which has already been passed
by the House – instead of productively using this time to debate and pass a
real energy policy that the American people deserve.